Re: [office-metadata] question for Elias on rdf:type/odf:type

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On May 17, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

...

> The suggestion was made by Bruce that we should ask you if rdf:type  
> would be more appropriate than developing types on our own.

Just to agree with Elias on the process issue here though ...

I saw odf:type only by accident yesterday because we were discussing  
an example that used it. I had never before heard any discussion of  
this (though missed a meeting or two of course).

I then asked "why is that there?", to which Svante explained the  
reason. I then asked "did Elias approve this?" Answer: yes.

That kind of thing should not happen. We should not by default be  
putting things in the proposal that we've not first agreed on.

For larger context, I think this happened in the context of earlier  
discussions about preferring to define our own properties in some  
cases (in the manifest). But the rdf namespaced properties are, from  
my understanding, rather special. I wasn't sure of the technical  
explanation of how and why, which is why I urged checking with Elias.

There's one other example of this:

> The <odf:Element> element can be bound to a metadata file by the  
> odf:belongsTo property attribute. The odf:belongsTo property  
> attribute value is the IRI of a named RDF graph.

Elias raised a flag on the list about odf:belongsTo. We need to  
resolve that too; should be define this property, and if so, how?

Bruce